I think what it is saying is that in the American Western the hero has to win and therefore he must have the fastest gun to be able to do so - hence by default the hero has the fastest gun. In the Leone Western, the fastest gun can be given to any character regardless of their morals thus making them the hero by default - hence the fastest gun is the hero.

I think what it is saying is that in the American Western the hero has to win and therefore he must have the fastest gun to be able to do so - hence by default the hero has the fastest gun. In the Leone Western, the fastest gun can be given to any character regardless of their morals thus making them the hero by default - hence the fastest gun is the hero.

By the way, D&D where is that quote in Frayling's work?

I don't remember where he said it; i believe it is multiple places. I have read all his books, and watched all his commentaries, and I don't remember where I heard this.

The point is, in the AW, the hero is the "good guy," and they also give him the fastest gun- but the fastest gun is not what MAKES him the hero. In the Leone Western, the character is not a "good guy" what MAKES him the hero is the fact that he is the fastest gun

We like Gary Cooper or John Wayne because they are the good guy ( and they happen to give the good guy the fastest gun so that we can have a happy ending). But We like Clint Eastwoid BECAUSE he is the fastest gun, the coolest guy.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

I don't remember where he said it; i believe it is multiple places. I have read all his books, and watched all his commentaries, and I don't remember where I heard this.

The point is, in the AW, the hero is the "good guy," and they also give him the fastest gun- but the fastest gun is not what MAKES him the hero. In the Leone Western, the character is not a "good guy" what MAKES him the hero is the fact that he is the fastest gun

We like Gary Cooper or John Wayne because they are the good guy ( and they happen to give the good guy the fastest gun so that we can have a happy ending). But We like Clint Eastwoid BECAUSE he is the fastest gun, the coolest guy.

One strange thing is that when people compare the SW to the US Western ,they always compare the SW to the US W of the 50s. But al lot of things changed in the film world in the 60s within a few years. Compared to the then contemporary US Ws many of the often named differences are not there. The violence and the dirt and the rise of ambivalent protagonists happened in the US W parallel to the SW.

Actually the SW has still a hero, with only a few exceptions, but it is a modified hero, one which is less driven by ethic issues, and cause this hero has become more violent, the baddie had to become even more bad the before, up to an irrational point. In most SWs there is no doubt who is the good guy and who not, while the real anti-hero is to be find more in the US Ws of the late 60s and 70s.

There are strong differences between the SWs and the US Ws, but not that simplified view of the US W which mayn SW fans have. And which is btw also not realyl true about many of the older US W. Just watch Yellow Sky, or 40 Guns, or The Man with the Gun, or Blood on the Moon, or Man of the West, or or or ...Even in Rio Bravo Wayne shoots an escaping rider in the back.

I think what it is saying is that in the American Western the hero has to win and therefore he must have the fastest gun to be able to do so - hence by default the hero has the fastest gun. In the Leone Western, the fastest gun can be given to any character regardless of their morals thus making them the hero by default - hence the fastest gun is the hero.

I understand what this quote wants to say, only it is not really true. Like explained.

No doubt, the hero of many AW's was not really a "good guy." Even going as far back as the late 30's, with STAGECOACH, JESSE JAMES, THE RETURN OF FRANK JAMES, into the 40's with RED RIVER and the 50's with THE SEARCHERS. And the Mann-Stewart "adult Westerns" of the 50's

Not all AW's had the same type of heroIt is, as stanton says, more a stereotype than an absolute reality. Still, TMWNN took it to a different level. He's the hero because he is the fastest gun and he is cool. Although TMWNN also has good qualities. Ultimately, he saves the "holy family," just as John Wayne in THE SEARCHERS ultimately saves his neice (or is it his daughter?)

Maybe this distinction between AW's and SW's, and the line quoted by Frayling, isn't 100% reality, but it's still a good line to repeat

« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 09:03:03 PM by drinkanddestroy »

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

One strange thing is that when people compare the SW to the US Western ,they always compare the SW to the US W of the 50s. But al lot of things changed in the film world in the 60s within a few years. Compared to the then contemporary US Ws many of the often named differences are not there. The violence and the dirt and the rise of ambivalent protagonists happened in the US W parallel to the SW.

Actually the SW has still a hero, with only a few exceptions, but it is a modified hero, one which is less driven by ethic issues, and cause this hero has become more violent, the baddie had to become even more bad the before, up to an irrational point. In most SWs there is no doubt who is the good guy and who not, while the real anti-hero is to be find more in the US Ws of the late 60s and 70s.

There are strong differences between the SWs and the US Ws, but not that simplified view of the US W which mayn SW fans have. And which is btw also not realyl true about many of the older US W. Just watch Yellow Sky, or 40 Guns, or The Man with the Gun, or Blood on the Moon, or Man of the West, or or or ...Even in Rio Bravo Wayne shoots an escaping rider in the back.

When people talk about what is a SW and what is an AW, they're really talking about where things come from. For example: holsters. Holsters in the old west were not like the ones you see in AW and SW. When discussing SW outfits, nobody says holsters are SW elements. They've been stolen from AW. They're hollywoodian. The fact that they've been used in SW is irrelevent. The same goes with dirt and violence in post 1965 AW: it comes from SW. Of course it's been used in AW since then. It's still a SW element.

The same goes with dirt and violence in post 1965 AW: it comes from SW. Of course it's been used in AW since then. It's still a SW element.

No it doesn't. it was already there in several westerns inthe 50s, and it developed in the first half of the 60s, and actually many SWs before Django (1966) look pretty clean. And still enough after Django.

If you watch a few key westerns of every year after 1960 you can see how everything developed without any SW influence, and Peckinpah was much more influential for the US W than any SW. I'm sure that The Dirty 12 and Bonnie and Clyde had more influence on the violence in westerns than the Dollar trilogy which was released in the US in the same year.

Just check Ride the High Country, Rio Conchos, Major Dundee, The Professionals or even some minor ones like Firecreek or Rough Night in Jericho, and you see how the western changed without any SW influence. I'm also sure The Wild Bunch would have been made that way without any SW existing. Actually I generally don't see much SW influence in US westerns apart from the ones by Eastwood.

I think the US directors mostly despised European westerns as a strange and tasteless anomaly, and did not care for them, and did not watch them.

No it doesn't. it was already there in several westerns inthe 50s, and it developed in the first half of the 60s, and actually many SWs before Django (1966) look pretty clean. And still enough after Django.

If you watch a few key westerns of every year after 1960 you can see how everything developed without any SW influence, and Peckinpah was much more influential for the US W than any SW. I'm sure that The Dirty 12 and Bonnie and Clyde had more influence on the violence in westerns than the Dollar trilogy which was released in the US in the same year.

That's the first time I read this theory, which is strongly opposed to everything I've read about western history. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means you should at least double check your facts before being so radical. However, here is something that means you're wrong: to me, Pecknipah was highly influenced by SW.Also, Arthur Penn loved European cinema.

Just check Ride the High Country, Rio Conchos, Major Dundee, The Professionals or even some minor ones like Firecreek or Rough Night in Jericho, and you see how the western changed without any SW influence.

I've seen all of the examples you give but one. The dustiest have been done after many SW hit American theaters, other ones aren't that dusty: Major Dundee is dustier than, say, The Stagecoach, but come on, The Avengers is too.

That's the first time I read this theory, which is strongly opposed to everything I've read about western history. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means you should at least double check your facts before being so radical. However, here is something that means you're wrong: to me, Pecknipah was highly influenced by SW.

For me he was zero influenced by SWs. Everything is already there in his early westerns and also in his TV series The Westerner. I have watched nearly every important US Western and SW, and I know what I'm talking about. It is quite interesting that in most books about Peckinpah Leone isn't even mentioned.

Quote

Also, Arthur Penn loved European cinema.

Penn loved Nouvelle Vague films, that is something very different. And his the Left Handed gun is already quite violent, and one with a more realistic approach towards costumes.

Quote

I've seen all of the examples you give but one. The dustiest have been done after many SW hit American theaters, other ones aren't that dusty: Major Dundee is dustier than, say, The Stagecoach, but come on, The Avengers is too.

Then watch the scenes in Ride the High Country in the gold camp, it looks like hell, and in Major Dundee, towards the end, Dundee and his men look like savages. And you find several examples for very dirty looking westerns already in the 40s.

Quote

You disagree with good old Peckinpah about violence and The Wild Bunch. He said a couple times he couldn't have done The Wild Bunch without Leone's westerns.

I'm sure he could. sure, Leone's westerns helped to increase violence, but it was increasing anyway, and as I said others were as influential or more influential. Just watch Night of the Living Dead (1968), which is verya unusual for that year. Important was also a censorship code which was abandoned around 1968.

Quote

Maybe they did despise these movies. But money doesn't care about taste, especially when Hollywood's moneymaker genre was losing market shares.

But actually according to data from a book I have, the Dollar trilogy was less successful in the USA than I always assumed. They were highly profitable for UA, cause they bought the rights for a chicken shit, but compared to US westerns of the late 60s their box office results were far from impressive. Even Hang em High made more money.And all the other SWs did far less thna the Leones.

I could each of these points but let's make things simple: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're exagerating. Of course, SW didn't happen out of nowhere, the same thing was happening in the US and in Europe, more violence, more dirt... And of course you can find Italian westerns that looks like AW from the 50's and the other way around. I rest my case about the global picture.

The Spagies took from the US Ws what they liked the most about them. They basically skipped talk, love scenes and the mythological superstructure, and they kept the action and the typical western atmosphere. And they made something unique out of their role models. But all these elements were already there in the US Ws, and they were developed further at the same time when the SW swept in the European cinemas, before Leone appeared in the US theaters.

When I take now The Wild Bunch, the seminal US W of these years, than I see absolutely nothing in it which wasn't developed from the US W of the decade before, and Peckinpah's earlier films are the clearest forerunners for its style and its themes and its atmosphere. Maybe the possibility to show the then excessive violence was helped to establish by Leone's then excessive violence, but when, then there were other films too. At best Leone helped to create the new freedom in showing violence, but he wasn't the only one. And the violence itself is completely different from the one created by Leone. Peckinpah's violence is very differently directed and is very differently linked to the story and the characters.

So, what is in TWB, which couldn't be derived form earlier US Ws, and especially from earlier Peckinpah westerns? IMO probably nothing.

Typical SW things like the use of music or the ritualised and choreographed duels did not find their way into US westerns.

What I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is STYLE in all its permutations i.e., cinematography, soundtrack, sound design which is one big contribution to the genre by Leone, coupled with that picaresque sense of humor.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!